What do you use to take pictures?

[Outnabout]

Looking through some of the threads there is some cracking photos being taken. I know very little about photography but do appreciate a good shot.
I'm assuming they aren't taken by phone as I find phone are ok at best, so what are people using to take pictures as I'm looking to buy something for future walks.

[Mal Grey]

On this site there are reports with excellent images taken by all sorts of cameras, from phone to expensive DSLR, via GoPros and Compact digi cameras. What matters more is thinking about the images you want a little, and good composition of the photo.

Personally, though a phone is used on occasion, I find them inadequate. Not so much because of the picture quality, which can actually be reasonable, but because they're hard to see, difficult to use in anything other than perfect conditions, and hard to hold when its cold.

Compact digital cameras probably get used for more photos than any other type, as they're a good balance of weight v quality. I'd also dump "bridge" cameras into this area, somewhere between compacts and DSLRs. I have a waterproof compact Olympus Tough TG2, which gets used when the weather is poor or I'm climbing a trickier bit so need to quickly grab shots. Using these without an optical viewfinder can be hard in the sun, as the screen is hard to see. Especially with polarised sunglasses!

The rest of the time I use my Canon 700D DSLR with a 18-135mm zoom lens. Its a bit heavy, but I think the results are worth the extra weight. It allows me more control over the image, better depth of field, great resolution and good performance in lower light conditions. My reports are 90% with that camera, 10% with the TG2, I'd say. I carry it in a LowePro shoulder bag unless the terrain is harder.

If your photography is mostly a record, and taken quickly whilst on the move, a good Compact will be more than capable. If you want to take your photography a bit more seriously, then a DSLR will help you to learn about controlling the different aspects (shutter speed, aperture, ISO etc) to get different results or to maximise the quality.

What's most important to remember is that ANY type of camera can produce very good images these days. Spending a bit of money on a photography course and using a compact might be better value than going straight for a high end DSLR.

[Outnabout]

I had a quick look on this site at the photography section never really saw anything saying what type of device was used.

I know there will be all types from phones to the higher end stuff. I took some photos up on Ben Lomond with my phone on Sunday and although good enough to share on WhatsApp or Facebook they are not mind-blowing.

I have a Nikon Coolpix (I think that's what it is)don't really know if will be any good as you can't point and shoot with it so think decent long distance shots might hard to get, was thinking of a point and shoot compact with 16mp and a x30 zoom, absolutely hopeless with this kind of stuff but at the same time wouldn't mind getting into it, nothing serious, just catching the raw beauty of the hills.

[Skyelines]

To answer the question - I do have rather a lot of camera kit because I like making pictures, doing my own editing and printing.

However if just going for a walk I take a full frame DSLR body and a 24-105mm zoom which is the lightest combination I have. It covers most photo needs and walking poles are good for a makeshift tripod, me being the third leg.

What one chooses to take pictures with depends a lot on what one wants to do with the resulting picture.

[BobMcBob]

There are plenty of decent compacts around that will take decent pictures, but what’s more important is thinking about light and composition and knowing how to use your camera properly. A recent photo competition on this site was won by a shot taken with an IPhone.

I use a Nikon D90 with a Nikkor 16-85 lens and a hamdful of Cokin ND graduated filters, but it doesn’t guarantee good photos

[jmarkb]

Lots of good advice above: I use a higher-end compact, which has some limitations compared to a DSLR, but I like the convenience and light weight. I occasionally use my phone if I don't have the camera with me, and I've been surprised how well it does, at least in good light.

A few fairly basic skills both in taking the photo (e.g. think about framing and composition, avoid overexposure) and in post-processing (e.g. cropping, contrast, saturation, white balance, sharpening) can make a big difference to the quality, no matter what camera you are shooting with.

[Pastychomper]

A keen photographer I know told me he makes sure any camera he buys has a manual mode, and that's the main advice I'd add to the above. Most of the time you won't need or want to use it, but with the range of lighting and conditions in the hills, sooner or later you'll find a scene that looks stunning to your eyes but either too dark, too light or just plain drab to the camera. It takes surprisingly little skill for a human who knows what (s)he wants to get a good shot, but even a couple of hundred pounds' worth of camera will sometimes "guess" wrong.

Like others here I like a bit of zoom, too.

[onsen]

For posting & sharing on the internet.
A phone, pocket point'n shoot & micro 4/3rds are fine.
I like the dust & waterproof point & shoot models...quick & easy to use, plus i can
capture the underwater world too, reflection on the flat screen makes it hard to see the the image
your taking at times though.

Micro 4/3rd range, flexible & lightweight, gives you the choice of manual or auto modes, an eyepiece viewfinder to block out the reflections, tiltable screens for low to the ground viewpoints & interchangeable lens if you want specialise in the macro world or long lenses for wildlife & birds...plus everything else inbetween.

If you want quality or poster size posters for your man cave...go for the heavier/ expensive DSLR range or even
Medium format if your've got money to burn baby burn.

[desmondo1]

I am in the walk, shoot a snap quickly and move on bracket. Usually breathing too heavily have a steady hand.
For about 2/3rds of my quick snaps I use a Canon Powershot sx700 on auto. For the rest my phone.
When I am walking on my own and have no time pressures I will take the same shot with both. If it is a promising scene I will also shoot some manual mode shots but it cannot shoot in RAW.
The Canon is not a cheap compact unless bought 2nd hand on ebay or the like and for me overall outdoor snaps are often disappointing, washed out and need a nudge in Photoshop. For normal scenes the 1st quality with Samsung phone is good but it hates bright stuff, snow etc.
The advantage of shoot and move on a lot end up in dusty bin deletion but there are still quite a few worth keeping as my enlargements on my study room prove.
Snap a lot and take a chance.

[2manyYorkies]

For the majority of walk photos I use a Sony RX100, compact but a little pricey, but has been brilliant. Has manual control (if needed), can shoot in RAW (if needed), has a pop-up viewfinder (if needed - which it often is in the bright sunshine we usually have on Scottish hills ), has an excellent lens (24-70), a big sensor (important for quality), and fits nicely in the chest pocket of my soft-shell or waterproof. Combined with Lightroom for processing and enhancing where required and that'll get the job done when you want to primarily walk, and take photos to record that walk.
If you want to prioritise the photography over the hill, then take the compact SLR with the best glass you can afford to carry (I binned the Canon DSLR, now use Fuji, lighter and just as good), but most importantly, take a small but capable tripod, and go out early or late when the light is best .... composition and light are everything.
It's an old cliche, but the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.

[Boris_the_Bold]

I tend to use an iconograph, but you have to make sure the imp doesn't get too cold, or they a) slow down and b) produce shaky images.

BtB

[Mal Grey]

I tend to use an iconograph, but you have to make sure the imp doesn't get too cold, or they a) slow down and b) produce shaky images.

BtB

A specialist company like PHD can make down suits to measure...

[Will N To]

I'm an old pro. I've traveled and hiked with a 4x5 and then downsized to a Pentax 6x7 (whose main components are glass, aluminum and concrete), so I schlep a DSLR, Nikon. This is more based on habit than the result of a rational process.
In the FX size I got a Nikon 28-300mm zoom, and Tokina 17-35 mm zoom. Great range coverage, relatively inexpensive. These lenses distort, but Lightroom and Photoshop quickly fix this.
Don't take any of this as a recommendation. It's about 7 pounds of stuff. So it has to be walking, camping, and photography or there's no point.
I use Lightroom to transfer, tweak and catalogue the images, but Lightroom can't process the new Nikon Raw images. It's been a year, so I'm not holding my breath. There is a conversion app, but that's another step. (Digital photography has taken a step backwards about 15 years.) Adobe recommends that I use Lightroom Mobile, but I can't use Raw, and anything I do results in a 3 meg image, instead of the 45 meg the camera shoots (so why not just use a smart phone?)
Nikon has an app that allows me to wirelessly download 8 meg images to my phone or iPad. This works great for sending images off via email, websites, Instant messaging. But these are not very big. Still OK. So, big guns, but no recommendation here.
btw the whole megapixel thing? The real quality factor is physical sensor size, not sensor density. So smart phones, great, but also carrying a small digital camera as well may be redundant because the images won't be noticeably better. Use the panorama feature, HDR and tweak images in an app other than the one in the phone. (Those autofilters Chrome, Vivid... usually result in gimmicky images that are quickly tiresome, do your own tweaks.)
I tried adding a photo.

[Navvarr]

I use a Nokia 808 Pureview - it's an old Nokia from circa 2012 with a monster 41MP sensor that then pixel bins down to 8MP or not depending on what you've set it to.
The advantage of using the Nokia 808 is that you have a veritable swiss army knife in your pocket- a phone with an excellent camera which takes DSLR quality photos- in addition I use sports tracker to track my movements- having created my own maps I've for maps even without a mobile signal- it's a garmin basically without the cost.
It being a phone, makes it a useful emergency phone if needed - I carry three, each on a different mobile network to maximize coverage.
You also can use the Nokia 808 as a Satnav- I use mine, it's as good as any satnav I've used before.
In addition, battery life on a Nokia 808 is excellent- I can walk all day with GPS and everything turned on, taking pictures as I go and still regularly have at least 50% battery life left.
One other feature I use regularly is the FM transmitter- handy to listen to your music on those long drives up to the mountains.